12 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVII 
ively to 1168 and 1169 A.D. These three verses are therefore 
perfectly consistent in themselves.! 
“ar. K. D. Banerji, however, ignores their value mainly on 
the two following grounds :— 
(i) That the extracts (b) and (c) are not to be found in all 
the available manuscripts of these two works, and that they 
s. 
A 
absence of these verses from some of the manuscripts, conclu- 
sions based upon them cannot be regarded as final unless corrob- 
orated by other evidence, but it is certainly going too far to 
say that they are to be looked upon as interpolations merely on 
that account.2 
As regards the second point, the principle advanced is quite 
all right, but its application in the particular instance does not 
seem to be correct ; for, as we have seen above, there is nothing 
in t. contemporary epigraphic records that is really in 
conflict with the verses quoted above 
- The statement of the Moslem historian Minhaj that 
Rai Lakhmaniya was defeated by Muhamma , 80n 0 
Bakhtiyar, within a few years of 1200 A.D. (the dates proposed 
by Raverty, Cunningham and Blochmann being respectively 
recognised long ago, and with adate for Ballalasena in about 
1160-1170 A.D., the reign of Laksmanasena naturally falls 
towards the end of the twelfth century A.D 
! The doubts raised on this point by Mr. Nagendranath Vasn seem to 
d : 
Saka and was e aged over it for a few years when he died. In the 
ntime another work, Danasagara, which was probably begun earlier, 
was brought to completion in the year 109] Saka. The statements m 
in mph resedeohe and Ddanasagara are not therefore inconsistent with 
other 
? Mr. Banerji unduly minimises the significance of the fact that three 
isolated passages in two different works corroborate one an another, 
arguments advanced by Mr. Chanda ( Gauda-raja-mala, Pp. 62) to prove 
the genuineness of these passages are very reasonable and have not, so 
far as IT know, been met by Mr. Banerji. 
